When Kate Barton dropped off her Avis rental car at the airport after five exciting days driving through Kruger National Park with a friend, it was time for part two of her South African trip: a flight to visit family in the Western Cape. visits via Johannesburg.
Although the flight from Kruger Mpumalanga International Airport was early in the morning, she was surprised that the Avis office had yet to open when she arrived with traveling companion Helen.
But after she had already paid the car rental and filled the gas tank to the brim, she left the VW Tiguan in the designated area and put the keys in the mailbox.
Adding up the costs: Kate Barton had no idea Avis had charged another £303 to her credit card until she got home to Britain
But as a regular user of car rental companies, she left nothing to chance. So she photographed the car, confirming that there were no bumps or scratches that Avis could charge her for. She also took a photo of the fuel gauge, which showed a full tank, and made a video of herself putting the keys in the return box.
“I was in a good mood,” said Kate, 45, owner of Reeves Model Engineers, a company that sells model railway parts. 'We enjoyed our time in the park and saw elephants, rhinos and our very first porcupine.'
But what she had no idea about until she got home to Britain was that Avis had charged a further £303 to the credit card she used to book the car when she picked it up at Skukuza Airport at the start of her trip . .
Avis was able to do this because, like all car rental companies and many hotels, it is allowed to 'hold' part of a customer's card balance when they come to pick up their car or check into a hotel.
This 'hold' can then be used by the company if there are any additional charges charged to a customer.
I was stunned: I thought it might be a billing or administrative error, or even fraud. But I knew they were accusations I didn't make
In the case of a rental car, these may relate to the costs of repairing a scratch on the paint. For a hotel, they can cover room service or minibar costs.
Kate examined the Avis invoice and discovered that the car she had delivered to Kruger Mpumalanga on November 15 had been used by someone else for a further two and a half days.
In that time it had been driven 750 miles, used up a full tank of fuel and incurred multiple toll charges – hence the £303 bill.
“I was stunned,” says Kate. “I thought it might be a billing or administrative error, or even fraud. “But I knew they were charges I didn't make.”
She thought a refund would be easy, but that wasn't the case. Despite Avis providing irrefutable evidence that the car was returned on the agreed date (photos with geo-tagging and time stamps), Avis South Africa rejected its claim.
Kate wouldn't let go. She sent Avis UK a copy of the video showing the car keys being placed in the required box.
Although the company said the evidence was undeniable, it was up to the South African branch to organize the refund.
After more than a week of 'going on the attack' by messaging Avis on Facebook, she got a breakthrough. Avis South Africa admitted that a 'mistake' had been made and that the additional costs would be refunded.
A few days ago, Kate got her money back, although there was no compensation for the time she spent trying to get the business up and running. Avis PR advisors, who I asked to investigate the matter, thanked me for bringing it to their attention and confirmed that a refund had been processed. No explanation for the error was given and no apology was offered.
Kate is also angry that she was subsequently charged £5.47 in fuel charges when she returned another Avis rental car at George Airport, Western Cape, at the end of her holiday.
Avis said the charge was applied because Kate had not refueled within the required five kilometers of the airport. But there is no petrol station within seven kilometers – and no such requirement is included in the rental conditions.
“Anyone who rents a car should be vigilant,” she warns. “Companies will take every opportunity to eat up credit card space. So photograph everything at the beginning and end of a hire – and take videos.”
- Has a car rental company blocked your credit card from charging extra fees? Email: jeff.prestridge@mailonsunday.co.uk.
The 'criminal record' that generated the £5,000 policy payout
Costly: a broken tap in the bathroom caused the floor to collapse
Before anyone takes out home insurance, they are asked whether anyone in the household has an unused criminal record. If you answer 'yes', cover could become more expensive or decrease altogether – although specialist insurers are now offering policies to households where a member has a criminal record.
The reason insurers get tense is because they see a criminal as a bigger insurance risk.
Rachel McNamee, from Prenton, Merseyside, has just discovered how expensive it can be not to disclose an unused criminal record.
In August she took home cover at Halifax. On her application, she was asked whether she agreed or disagreed with the statement: “You or anyone living with you have no unresolved criminal convictions.” She replied, “Agree.”
That was the wrong answer because her 21-year-old son had been given a parole order two months earlier for harassing and causing trouble. The order stated that he would not be punished if he did not commit another crime during the eighteen months.
Rachel is a hardworking person who has never broken the law. She made a real mistake in thinking that a conditional discharge order was not a criminal conviction (I didn't know either until I started searching online).
Unfortunately it cost her a lot of money. In October, a broken valve in the bathroom of her four-bedroom home caused the floor to collapse.
It was only when the appraisers came by to inspect the damage that they heard from Rachel that her son had been given a conditional discharge order. Last month, Halifax blew its cover. She will now have to pay for the £5,000 damage out of her own pocket.
I'm not placing the blame on Halifax, although perhaps the statement on criminal convictions should mention that it includes conditional discharge orders.
Yet there is a huge gap between the cause of the claim (a leaky valve) and the reason for its rejection (a failure to realize that a conditional discharge order is a criminal conviction).
- I think Rachel was severely punished. What is your opinion? Email: jeff.prestridge@mailonsunday.co.uk.
Tough times for Hargreaves Lansdown
These are difficult times for Hargreaves Lansdown. It will fall out of the blue-chip FTSE 100 Index a week from Monday.
The investment platform is also being pursued by litigation firm RGL for the losses its clients suffered as a result of recommending Woodford Equity Income up to the day the fund was suspended in June 2019.
This recommendation to buy was despite Hargreaves Lansdown being aware of the fund's increasing liquidity problems.
Investors in the Woodford fund have just voted on whether to accept a compensation package worth at least £180 million at the time of the suspension.
The results of this vote will be announced later this week. Regardless of the outcome, RGL's claim against Hargreaves Lansdown will continue regardless.
Some links in this article may be affiliate links. If you click on it, we may earn a small commission. That helps us fund This Is Money and keep it free to use. We do not write articles to promote products. We do not allow a commercial relationship to compromise our editorial independence.